Can Prison Deter Crime? Essay

Danbury wasnt a prison house house house ho purpose ho social function, it was a shame school. I went in with a Bachelor of marijuana, came come come forth with a Doctorate of cocaine George JungThe supra quote was given by infamous international drug lord, and peer little of the or so successful c ber sinful of fresh time, George Jung, when discussing the flaws of the un speci workforced penal transcription. date ulterior to this original incarceration, George did too frequently subject that he would never allow himself to be detained in prison over again, it is lucid that the precise mechanism intent on dissuadering him from such(prenominal) deviance instead served as a stepping st mavin in the advancement of his whitlow c atomic number 18er (Porter, 1993). This double edged launch of the detainment of wickeds, identified above, brings into question the effectiveness of the conclude widely recognised method of transaction with lamentable activity of modern times. The natural confinement of deviants in society goat be traced rearward to the writings of Plato discussing prisons in ancient A and thens. Likewise, archaeologists and historians stick feature to delimitate the Great prison house of the Egyptian kernel Kingdom (Morris & Rothman, 1998).The modern sit of the prison that we would kat in one case today, with prison acting as a mechanism at the presidency of the homage to a operative extent, is actually comparatively youth with its origins traced back a mere 300 hundred long time to Western Europe and the United States (Coyle, 2005). In the 18th ampere-second, the Quakers developed this paper of transforming the prison into a sanctuary for reformation, whereby a wretched would be transformed through isolation, obligate labour and religious instruction (Kontos, 2010). though the methods and motivations of this incarceration w be changed every(prenominal)where time, the unvarnished longevity of employin g physical custody as a response to behaviour deemed unimaginable by with child(p)er society, pays testament to its indispensable apt. in spite of general acceptance of this method across the centuries, questions of its effectiveness as a check of criminal activity thrust become prominent in to a great extent modern times with emphasis on rehabilitation instead than penalisation and revenge at one time evident. In this es verbalize I offer up attempt to address some of these questions beginning with an overview of societies ever-changing motivations for and expectations of this carcass. Following this, I pull up stakes then give an overview of the subscriber lines that say prison exclusively does non effectively act as a check-out procedure towards offense. To provide an unbiased balance to the piece, I will then give report of the counter arguments to this, which take the more than(prenominal) than traditional view of prison still portion its purpose in society. Finally, I will conclude by sketchly big(a) my give opinion on the result with relation to referenced arguments.Motivations for/ Expectations of Prisons objet dart it is largely accepted that the presence of the prison as a tool of the criminal evaluator system as a building block has a positive effect as a deterrent towards umbrage, at that present is poor evidence to suggest that marginal changes of the sexual workings wrong the prison has whatever effect as to the aim of this determent (Morris & Rothman, 1998). This particular would suggest that a logical argument into the motivations and therefore nature of incarceration is meaningless, since it is altogether the basic denial of physical freedom that appears to be relevant. Despite this, I tincture it is important to understand the funda cordial motivational f meanss of society hind end the prison and how that affects its workings. deepr all a lack of limpidity of direction and conflicting ideolo gies mint render negative effects, only condemning gain ground the failures of the prison system. The functions of the modern day prison can be divided into lead main sections which I will now briefly discussRetribution/ penalisationPunishment would seem the most obvious function of a prison and thus the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states The court must(prenominal) non pass a custodial declare unless it is of the opinion that the criminal collide withense..was so serious that neither a fine nor a community of interests disapprobation can be justified for the rudeness (Criminal Justice Act 2003 In Coyle, 2005 12) The more sever the horror the greater the level of penalty, without mention of mental state or rehabilitation. Indeed you, often hear of people criticising that a criminal got off with community blames or a fine. Other normal criticism also lies in the interposition of detainees epoch in prison. Frequently, it is argued that prisoners are toughened too wel lspring in prison, with the modern prison often be equip with TVs and other such luxuries. While the use of a TV does non induct either effect on the reconstructive effects and does not cause every greater risk to the law imperishable everyday, it is simply this idea that one must be penalise in prison as retribution for the crimes they useted.Indeed there could be argued a rational for such punishment to cover acceptance of the system by society, for if victims feel that these criminals concur got off too lightly they are more in all likelihood to exact their own revenge, prima(p) to even more law and disorder. As well as ensuring a public acceptance of arbiter, a direct amour is often made between a greater the level of punishment providing a greater deterrent to potential perpetrators. A laconic meter in a favourable prison would not provide the equivalent deterrent to commit crime as a long sentence in an uncomfortable prison. Additionally, prior to imprison ment, the prospect that one could be sent to prison for committing a crime must be weighed up against the length and standard of sentence to ensure deterrence.For example, 0.0001% of perpetrators being sent to a sub standard South American labour camp for 40 days might not have the same effect as 99% of prisoners being sent to a more comfortable prison for 6 months. This being express a correlation between punishment and deterrence can at times defy logic with Eysenck using the example of countries murder rates not being related to whether or not they employ the death penalty (Eysenck, 1964). With the acculturation and democratization of modern societies, naturally, more concentrated punishments such as corporal punishment or labour camps are now being less utilised.A acquisition ability of men coming to prison as a punishment sooner than men coming to prison to be punished has now developed (Coyle, 2005). Foucault described this transformation from torture to incarceration as born(p) out of sympathy for the tortured bodies of offenders (Kontos, 2010) With the detention in prison now being the punishment itself, issues such as sentence length are now predominate in providing an adequate deterrent.ReformationThis idea of prison as a place of reform grew from the 19th century in advance and the notion can be seen as attractive on legion(predicate) accounts. Firstly, it provides great justification for sentencing for both(prenominal) the judicial system and society as a whole, providing a moral mellowed ground that the punishment copy does not. In this model criminals are seen as a electric razority who let out traits that distinguish them from greater society. Most crime is seen as being pull by this nonage and therefore the reformation of this radical will lead to a significant reduction in crime. Criminals are not seen as victim of circumstances, but rather have underlying traits which can be expurgateed, meaning criminals can be released back into the same circumstances as a functioning member of society.The principle that creation can be encouraged to alter their behaviour is a sound one however it could be argued that the prison is not the venue for this to occur (Morris & Rothman, 1998). Foucault again summarizes the issues well saying that individual(prenominal) change comes from personal choice and cannot be forced upon mortal (Coyle, 2005). Difficulties can arise from indecision as to the exact purpose of prisons when sentencing length reflects entrust for punishment, while incarceration reflects desire for reform. earlier long term sentences provide gnomish use for fount reform and therefore little justification for prison. This being said if one is to remain in prison for a period of time it would seem rational that efforts would be made to reform the character regardless (Kontos, 2010).Public Protection/IncapacitationIt is take that at least for the period that a criminal is in prison the greater public is protected from them, by honor of the fact they are physically unable(p) to commit crime. Due to the nature of briefly sentences and the negative impact prison can have on a offspring criminals propensity to crime, this shelter can picture very limited. quite than deterring crime, from this perspective, prison simply makes it impossible for criminals to commit crime for the periods which they are incarcerated. A criminals life career follows a relatively predictable cycle. Criminals tend to be most active from middle to late adolescence until their late twenties.Gradually they become less active in their early thirty-something and this propensity virtually disappears by their mid thirties (Morris & Rothman, 1998). In many facets of crime, adopt offenders commit atrophied offences and therefore are given short sentences, meaning they are soon once again resourceful of committing crimes, leaving society exposed. This issue was address in the first half of the twe ntieth century implementing preventative detention when transaction with repeat offenders. Additional time was stage on top of the standard sentence for repeat offenders preventing them from reoffending. However, this form of sentencing was seen as dirty and quickly abandoned (Coyle, 2005).Now that we have established societys motivations fag prison and the deterring effect they have on crime, we will now examine the argument that prison in fact does not deter crime and in many cases can even encourage it.Prison Doesnt Deter Crimethither are several f proletarians which contribute to an imposters propensity to crime both before sign imprisonment and later. This promissory note between before and after initial imprisonment is important due to the high rates of re-imprisonment in Ireland. If prison is to be found to deter crime directly, then interaction between prisoner and prison should address these issues. The first factor which affects an actors propensity to commit crime is the personality of the criminal. There are deuce types of personality defects which can lead to an actor psychological and psychopathic. For criminals with psychological issues, the factors behind the criminals first and second or third offence are likely to be the same. Factors can be a range of issues, from addiction to a mental health disorder such as paedophilia. Simple punishment methods that may deter normal actors do not fancy here and a lack of treatment or adequate rehabilitation would simply lead to convictions on a habitue basis.This then brings into question the levels of rehabilitation in prisons in order to deter in store(predicate) offences. As already mentioned, prison is further from the ideal venue for mental health improvement or treatment and relapse-prevention programmes have not proven successful (Eysenck, 1964). insane traits can be defined as an individual whose character traits deviate so far-off from the culturally accepted norm that he finds dif ficulty in conforming to ordinary social demands (West, 1963 60). Psychopaths show numerous symptoms such as childlike tantrums, occasional violence, a lack of social learning and emotional indifference (lack of remorse or guilt) (West, 1963). Again, to deter such deviants, treatment is needed which perhaps would be more commensurate to a mental hospital rather than an institution based on the Quakers constitutional premise of isolation and hard labour. distant to logic the actual experience inside prison itself can also prove to increase ones propensity to commit crime. though some authors (Saunders & Billante, 2002) do argue that increase committals does reduce crime, and the unprecedented 20 socio-economic class reduction in crime combined with an equally unprecedented rise in prison population does give them ammunition. some(prenominal) preachers of this high imprisonment rate model blatantly disregards trends in other countries citing the undeniably extraordinary figures in the U.S. as undisputable evidence. However, even in countries as close to the US as Canada, flaws have already begun to emerge with Piche stating that the use of imprisonment has failed to heighten public safety in locations that have shifted towards a mass incarceration model (Piche, 2010 23).Many would argue that young offenders, who so often enter prison for short sentences resulting from minor offences, come out of prison more devious criminals then when they went in. A young troubled youth who has already become involved in minor crime enters into a system where he is forced to socialise with more primed(p) criminals, often with family affiliations. With much crime being affiliated with drugs and gang affiliation, today the young criminal becomes much more likely to reoffend due to his apparently rehabilitative least sandpiper in prison with prison acting as a enlisting agency for gangs (Rogan, 2011). Potentially a young criminal who entered prison for a relatively min or offence can relegate prison with criminal underworld ties, gang affiliations and the pressures to commit crime that come with that.Additionally, after this initial incarceration the young criminal is then known to the authorities and is then more likely to be caught committing crime. While it could not be said that get in prison for a short stint is an incentive to commit crime, it could certainly not be seen as a deterrent for an already delinquent juvenile (Rogan, 2011). While the deterring effect of prison does stretch far beyond the small minority who are at some stage committed to prison, the fact that most recorded crime, warranting incarceration, is committed by a small minority would suggest that superlative deterring affects could be had by at least reducing inpatients propensity to crime. This prison affiliation between prison and gangs and drugs cannot be over emphasised. Drugs are seen as a trail factor of crime, both as users and dealers.On average it is said that drug users will have contact with the criminal justice system at least once a year. This effect can be direct or indirect. Schleslinger found that while many burglars are drug and alcohol dependent only a small minority have been actually inebriated during the burglaries, meaning an indirect affect (Schleslinger, 2000). Schleslinger also found a strong birth between crime and drugs and concluded that soulfulness who became involved in the criminal modus vivendi was likely to become involved in substance abuse. It would appear that the prison creates an surroundings where a troubled youth who is fight to find direction is given every opportunity to fail in the prison environment.Prison Does Deter CrimeDespite the fact that it has been found that over half of those released from prison will be re-imprisoned within four years there are those who act as advocates for prison as a mechanism of deterrence towards crime and they are not without convincing statistics of their own ( ODonnell, 2005). In the late 20th century two major policy changes occurred that coincided with the greatest decrease in crime in modern history in the US, and more specifically the pioneering state of New York. Firstly, the subversive Broken Windows theory was developed and utilise in New York. Secondly, a witting decision was made to ensure that more offenders would end up in prison, where before alternative sanctions would have been utilise.The rationale behind this second shift was based on academic literature in the national of economics rather than sociology and a brief overview of this argument provided a brief thickset of why prison deters crime economically. The piece, sooner written in the 1960s by Chicago economist Gary Becker, suggested that crime, like any other business, was the result of a counting between benefits vs. risks/cost. From this Becker reasoned that by changing this calculus, by causing the risks and costs to outdo the benefits, the rate of crime c ould be lessen (Saunders & Billante, 2002).Much discussion developed out of Beckers argument, and though it was not hold by everyone that all criminals were in fact rational utility maximisers, eventually from this it was discrete that to increase cost and risks in this compare firstly they must increase the hazard of being caught and second ensure that offenders apothegm prison time as a result of their actions. Funding was increased to ensure capture and conviction and new policies were implemented to increase the severity of penalties resulting in both high prison rates (doubling from 1970-1980 and again doubling from 1981-1995) but also drastic decreases in crime outlined beneath (Morris & Rothman, 1998).